The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Pakistani man’s appeal against the refusal of refugee status, finding that the decision was fundamentally flawed because documents about his claimed political activity were not properly considered and assessed.
Mr Justice McDermott granted leave to apply for judicial review on grounds iii, vii and viii. He treated the application as the substantive hearing and quashed the Tribunal decision, remitting the matter for a hearing before a different tribunal member. The ruling did not determine whether the applicant qualified for refugee status.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as U.M., said he had been active in Pakistan’s Awami National Party and that authorities fabricated a criminal case against him because of his political beliefs. He also said he had been threatened by criminal gang members after acting as a lawyer in a double murder case. These were his claims, not findings by the High Court.
The Tribunal rejected his appeal in a decision dated 3 July 2009, following an oral hearing in September 2008. It questioned his claimed party membership in part because he could not answer basic questions about the party’s history, symbol and election performance. It also questioned whether he was a lawyer, citing his answers about constitutional protections for people accused of crimes. The Tribunal was not satisfied that police protection would be unavailable in response to the alleged gang threats.
The applicant had provided documents including a party membership card, police reports, arrest warrants and a newspaper article. The High Court said the documents appeared relevant to his claims of party involvement and police action, but the Tribunal’s decision did not specifically discuss them. A general statement that it had considered relevant documentation was not enough in the circumstances, the judge held. The documents still required proper assessment; their existence did not require a decision in the applicant’s favour.
The court refused leave on separate grounds concerning the applicant’s claimed legal qualifications and the alleged gang threats, finding that the lack of reference to those documents was not as significant as the failure to assess the political evidence. It did not consider the remaining grounds necessary to resolve the case, and said several could not provide a substantial basis for leave.